TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Mastering vs. Good Production Ethics
Pages (2): « 1 [2]

I'll post it again since it landed so far down on the previous page.. In case people'll overlook it .....

quote:

Originally posted by Sean Walsh If they decide to sign it they'll ask for the unmastered .wav and do it themselves.

Which, generally, essentially means the track without compression and maximising, or without maximising only? As said, compression on top of a track can have quite dramatic effects on the sound itself. And if youre to remove this before sending it off for someone else to master it, it might be hard for this engineer to reproduce the exact sound it had with the compression on. What determines wether you should remove this compression or not, before sending the wav off to final mastering? What determines wether this compression is an effect to the *sound* itself, or if its considered a mastering effect? You, yourself?

Afterall.. Mastering should preferably only be, in this day and age, a very transparent modification to the track. So what do you say?

quote:

Originally posted by lenieNt Force Which, generally, essentially means the track without compression and maximising, or without maximising only? As said, compression on top of a track can have quite dramatic effects on the sound itself. And if youre to remove this before sending it off for someone else to master it, it might be hard for this engineer to reproduce the exact sound it had with the compression on. What determines wether you should remove this compression or not, before sending the wav off to final mastering? What determines wether this compression is an effect to the *sound* itself, or if its considered a mastering effect? You, yourself?

In my experience, they've wanted it the way my DAW has spit it out, without me loading it up in Audition and throwing a limiter on it as I'd do if I were to play it out or give it to another DJ to play out. Ideally, it shouldn't sound a fuck of a lot different after being run through EQ + hard limiter, it should just sound a few db louder in the right spots so it comes out banging at the club. If your track is sounding noticeably "different" after mastering then there's something fucked going on with your original mixdown.

quote:

Afterall.. Mastering should preferably only be, in this day and age, a very transparent modification to the track. So what do you say?

Yes, that's exactly what it should be IMO. I try to nail it down so it's loud and crisp when I render the track, with the levels close to maxed and very little left for the mastering stage to accomplish.

Seems you are a bit confused about what Mixdown is, and Mastering .

Kopi =o.

quote:

Originally posted by kopi_luwak Seems you are a bit confused about what Mixdown is, and Mastering . Kopi =o.

Well the fact is that it is not very different anymore, in this day and age. The ideal form of mastering would actally be to do a perfect mixdown, with just a maximiser on the final output. Mastering isnt that big of a process anymore, imo. With the digital era of musicproduction, the mixing and mastering processes has just merged more and more together.

Sean Walsh:

quote:

In my experience, they've wanted it the way my DAW has spit it out

Was the final output compressed when you sent it off? i.e. did you have a compressor/ multiband compressor on your master track in the mixer? (Usually, this is considered mastering.. so Im a little curious.)

quote:

Originally posted by lenieNt Force Was the final output compressed when you sent it off? i.e. did you have a compressor/ multiband compressor on your master track in the mixer? (Usually, this is considered mastering.. so Im a little curious.)

Never. Perhaps it was just naivety on my part, or lack of tools available, but compression on my final mixdown was never done until the track was already sitting as a lump of .wav on my HD spat out from the sequencer.

Mastering, to me, was taking that .wav into an external audio program such as Audition/Soundforge/Whatever, and applying external effects to it such as a hard limiter or 24-band EQ. Honestly, anything I did in these programs was random tinkering and rarely resulted in anything all that useful, so I can see where the mastering engineer comes in and actually earns his paycheque.

Potentially you could throw a compressor over the master channel to make the whole track pump in a way a mastering engineer definitely would not do, unless you specifically asked them to.

Absolutely, you can determine what is a creative, artistic decision. There's nothing stopping you putting the entire mix through a phaser, if that is your creative decision.

Ultimately, we all make the final decision on our art.

Generally, having a master channel with nothing on it is a good sign. Then again, there are some very experienced engineers creating fantastic sounding mixes, who have eqs across the master channel to get the sound where they want it, rather than leaving it up to chance that the mastering engineer has the same sonic taste as them.

There is a wide range of trance out there - some of it has biting high end, some is quite subdued, some is lush, some is hard-hitting. I've had mastering engineers take my music in all sorts of directions before I decided I wasn't going to put all this work into my mixes, only for some guy to come in and work on it for half an hour and take it somewhere else.

Whether I'm doing the mastering or not, I take full responsibility for the end product. If the mastering engineer doesn't give me what I want, then I wasn't clear enough in telling them what I want.

Once you spend a certain number of hours in the studio working on your mixing skills, you don't spend time thinking about mastering anymore. The tracks already sound the way you want them to sound, and yeah, when you get an album together (or a track, if it's a one-off) then you sit with a mastering engineer and get the thumbs up. If they hear too many things they'd like to change, go home and remix and bring it back.

This threads loaded with great info, bump and thanks everyone who contributed.

i dont mean to throw in a wrench but people might find this interesting:

when i was finished mixing down my Small World EP and it was time to get it mastered, i decided i didnt like the summing algorithm of ableton. so instead of sending the one file mixdown of each song, i sent all of the stems to the mastering house and they summed it on an analog mixing desk. i really liked the result. im weird i know.

quote:

Originally posted by No Left Turn In an ideal world, all masters would be done this way. I can't think of a mastering engineer who would prefer to master a stereo mix rather than the individual stems because they think they'd get a better sounding master. Yes, it's more work, but the end product can be much more detailed.

No it wouldn't be done this way because if you send 30 channels to an engineer to get each one 'mastered' you are basically asking the guy to mix your track for you since you seem incapable of doing it properly yourself.

Mastering never has and never will be a cure all for a shit mix. You can't very well call yourself a producer if you can't mix. Either get busy trying to improve your mixdown and get real results or pack it in, sell all your gear and spend it on something you want to put some effort into in order to get good.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J What should not be overlooked is that a proper mastering engineer will have the equipment and expertise to identify how your track will sound across a wide variety of systems, from crappy consumer-grade speakers to a big club sound system. He or she should be able to balance your track in a way that allows it to stand out on any system it is played on. His or her role is very important in providing a good balance for your track and preparing it for its final media destination (vinyl, CD, etc.), but he should not be relied upon to fix your broken mix.

Great post. Yes, A lot of budding producers don't realize this, or really understand what mastering is. We all must realize that our tracks are going to be heard on every kind of system; from Ipod buds to cheap PC speakers, all the way up to high end club speakers. What sounds great on your studio monitors, might blow away little PC speakers.

quote:

Originally posted by derail Mastering is there for fixing problems and raising gain in an inoffensive way. That's it. If there happens to be a heap of low-end rumble in your mix which you can't hear because of your listening situation, then a good mastering room will pick that up and a good mastering engineer will remove it.

Another great post. I agree with you that most of us don't have the knowlege, skilled ear, or proper listening environment to be able to do these things properly. Most major labels insist that your tracks be mastered by their inhouse engineers. This is to ensure quality control.

Once you understand what mastering is, you will quit thinking it's some kind of magic bullet. Your mixes must sound great unmastered. I have to admit, it took me a while to truly understand exactly what mastering is.

Alfi's mastering tips of the day:

You can send a bag of dog crap to the mastering company, and it will still be a bag of dog crap when it comes back. Only difference is that it will be louder, and your wallet will be thinner.

Always fix any problem in the sound image before your final mixdown. If you don't, you'll prolly be hearing the frequencies crash on that mid-bass and that awesome hook, that you spent so much time on. Or whatever that is the problem hehe..

There is a saying that goes for more than just the music industry. "Shit in, shit out". A pile of doo on a plate isnt appetizing, niether is salted poo on a stick. You might fool some...

quote:

Originally posted by dj_alfi Alfi's mastering tips of the day: You can send a bag of dog crap to the mastering company, and it will still be a bag of dog crap when it comes back. Only difference is that it will be louder, and your wallet will be thinner.

We should have a shoutbox in this forum and this message should be repeated every 3 minutes just in case someone misses it.

Yes, it can't be repeated enough.

You can expect your track to sound louder, you can expect it to sound more "correct" (in terms of major problems, like too much inaudible bass, being removed).

But if you expect your track to sound "better", then that's a problem.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric J Mastering is an important step. It is not, however, the answer to getting a "professional" sound. I think a lot of beginner producers think that mastering is some sort of "magic bullet" that will rescue a poorly produced track and give them that "sound" they are looking for. Nothing can be further from the truth.

a big +1 to this statement, as a year or two ago i had thought the same thing.

So

Whats the point of people buyin studio monitors and such if down the road someone else is going to do all the tweaking for you anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by the-sixth So Whats the point of people buyin studio monitors and such if down the road someone else is going to do all the tweaking for you anyway?

because someone else down the road won't do all the tweaking for you anyway. you need monitors for mixing and mastering. mixing you do yourself, mastering is done by someone else.

read the thread dude.

quote:

Originally posted by Blake_Jarrell i dont mean to throw in a wrench but people might find this interesting: when i was finished mixing down my Small World EP and it was time to get it mastered, i decided i didnt like the summing algorithm of ableton. so instead of sending the one file mixdown of each song, i sent all of the stems to the mastering house and they summed it on an analog mixing desk. i really liked the result. im weird i know.

What exactly are stems? Does it mean you render each channel separately over the entire length of the track?

- farris

quote:

Originally posted by farris What exactly are stems? Does it mean you render each channel separately over the entire length of the track? - farris

correct

Mastering hardware can pump up songs a lot
I worked with the TC Finalicer and its fun
It realy has a huge influence on the audio

But it all depends on what you want as an end result
All these mchines have presets
I have worked at a studio and i have mastered songs there
That was pretty expensive for the customers
But it made a big diference to their production

But to be honnest mastering is most in the ear
The tools are there only to make it easyer
With the TC Finalicer you can make a preset
Compression limiting and eq all in 1 setting
So you select the preset and baaam the song already sounds faaat
Is it that impressive NOPE you can get the same result with good quality vst effects

Most production problems come up because of bad vollume mixes
Basedrum is real hard in vollume and hihats realy soft
So the end result sounds much to dark and needs brightness
Thats fixable but you will need noise reducers cos you get more noice
When you boost up full voll on the audiotrack to get more high tones

So its always best to master your music sound by sound
I always record all my midi to audio once i'm happy with the notes
Thats 40 audiotrax sometimes who play simultanious
But you keep full control on every single sound
And you dont need your VSTi instaled to play your song
So once a lable wants to release it
You take your dvd with you to their studio and mix the voll how they like it
And since you got all on loops remixing is easy then too

No need to record full trax of every sound off course
Just make 8 bar loops and ghost copy them on that channel
Otherwise you need 1 dvd per song if you use 40 trax at once
Logic and Cubase are used in every professional studio
So a logic-cubase song and wav filles will be perfect for mastering
Cheap mastering can be done on full wav filles
But that will only be compression-limiting in a whole
And good equalising off course
Because equalising is what i do most when i master for someone
Thats where most mistakes are made
So most mastering is in the ear realy

If you make shure that all the vollumes are right compared to other instruments in the song
Than there will be litle need to master your song
But if your ears are not good enough to hear when its fine
Then mastering can make the eqing so much better that you think its a different song
But that does not have to cost you a lot of money since its a basic preset for the boosting limiter functions
And equalising by ear for the overall sound

But i think its best to record every sound to audio
Eq plugins work with track automation aswell
So you are able to lift up sounds in the mix at moments
But that will take a lot of time and mastering time is expensive
So its easyer to move a vollume fadar up
Then to automate a freq spectrum to boost at a certain part

Here an important mastering hint;
Before you record the full audio song
Put your vollume realy low so you barely hear the music
Then listen through the song and check if you still hear every sound
That way you will hear if some sounds are to soft in vollume compared to other sounds
Off course listen to it loud aswell
But putting the voll low will help a lot to clear up mixing mistakes

And check the vollume when you play the sounds together
Dont put all the vollumes at the same level by looking at your meter
And mute the basedrum once while listening through the full song
That will help you to keep the vollume ok compared to the basedrum its vollume

Hopefully it makes some sense, good luck

quote:

Originally posted by PassiePassion And check the vollume when you play the sounds together Dont put all the vollumes at the same level by looking at your meter And mute the basedrum once while listening through the full song That will help you to keep the vollume ok compared to the basedrum its vollume Hopefully it makes some sense, good luck

quite a good tip there mate, i found it useful already

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.